The EU’s new military pact should be opened up to countries outside the bloc — such as the U.S., Norway and the U.K. — after Brexit, according to a proposal to be discussed by European defense ministers next month.

The idea — put forward as a “food for thought paper” by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands — would, if implemented, erode the EU exclusivity of the military cooperation forum. But it offers another way besides NATO to keep Britain, in particular, engaged in European security structures after next year.

The U.K. is the biggest military spender of the current 28 EU countries and a rare one able to project force into distant combat zones. This proposal opens a path for Britain, or another so-called third country, to take a role in future EU military initiatives, including in an EU rapid reaction force.

The two-page document, titled “Third state participation in PESCO projects,” states: “Certain PESCO projects can benefit from participation by non-EU countries in terms of providing capacities, specific expertise or financial contributions that are useful for either capacity development or operations.”

It proposes that third countries “be invited by the participating Member States of a PESCO project acting unanimously and on a case-by-case basis.”

“To protect our citizens’ security, we need to look beyond existing precedents and find a solution that allows us to continue to work together” — David Davis, U.K. Brexit Secretary

U.K. Brexit Secretary David Davis said the EU had a choice: “They can treat us as a third country according to existing precedents, creating something that falls well short of our existing relationship, or they can take a more adaptable approach in which we jointly deliver the operational capability that we need to tackle the ever-evolving threats to our shared security.

U.K. Brexit Secretary David Davis | Andy Rain/EPA-EFE

“To protect our citizens’ security, we need to look beyond existing precedents and find a solution that allows us to continue to work together. There is no legal or operational reason why such an agreement could not be reached,” he said.

The Benelux proposal lays out conditions under which the participation of a non-EU country would be considered: specific expertise or assets, economies of scale, and a financial, operational or capacity contribution to the project. But it states that “a third state will not be involved in any decision making in relation to general PESCO matters.” The proposers want a “swift decision” as soon as possible after the Foreign Affairs Council meeting in June.

That timing may prove ambitious, however.

“Some member states, like France and Germany, want first to see how the future relationship [with the U.K. post Brexit] will be,” said a diplomat from one of the backing countries. Defense and security cooperation is just one part of a vast slew of topics for negotiation with the U.K., and it is an area where Britain feels it has strong cards to play in the talks because of its globally significant military.

A Dutch diplomat stressed, though, that the Benelux proposal is bigger than Britain or Brexit: “It’s not only the U.K. We work a lot with Norway that could contribute, but also the U.S., Canada or Switzerland.”

The first diplomat also said there have been diplomatic signals of interest from the U.S.

One major incentive for countries outside the EU is the prospect of their companies benefiting from lucrative contracts for building high-tech military kits. In its multiyear budget plan presented last week, the European Commission proposed creating a €13 billion European Defence Fund “to complement and catalyse national expenditure in research and capability development.”

Part of this money will be used for PESCO projects, although the European Parliament and member countries first have to agree on how the fund will operate.

Craig Lamont

I think the UK and the others should decline, after all, the EU have Pesco now.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 7:32 AM CEST

François P

Not very clear whether this is only about operations (why not, if these other countries are interested), or also about development of military capabilities (no thanks).

Posted on 5/11/18 | 8:01 AM CEST

cinc eur

@François

“no thanks”

Not sure anyone is going to ask you, François. Either way; surely working together to create well developed and complimentary capabilities is a good thing for European security?

No?

No. Not for morons like you like you, who see the entire world through the prism of what is essentially a foundering political project.

Luckily, people like you don’t run anything.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 8:39 AM CEST

Johan Stavers

This proposal is completely laughable!

If you bring the US in then…how is PESCO anything else than NATO?

And if the US (or the UK) then declines to participate in a certain operation
..then it won’t happen because the remaining PESCO will still not be self sufficient.

..and it will introduce non-EU political influence on the decision making no matter if they officially have no voice. Their will be factored in anyway because their contribution will matter.

If is a proposal to turn PESCO into a paper tiger.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 8:51 AM CEST

Alan

I think the UK should stick to NATO alongside US, Canada etc.

Germany in particular simply doesn’t have the will to defend itself & if the ‘dominant power’ in the EU27 can’t or more particularly & more concerningly simply won’t do anything why on earth should any other country do it for them?

Posted on 5/11/18 | 8:54 AM CEST

EU doublestandards

Considering the EU told us last week they would no longer allow us to share the secure Galileo defence and tactical frequencies, I find it a bit odd that they now want military cooperation. Which is it EU?

Posted on 5/11/18 | 8:59 AM CEST

Sean .

What military campaigns would the European Defence Force (or whatever it ends up being called) be involved in that NATO isn’t?

If it likely to be conflicts like Libya or Ukraine then I can’t see many third countries wanting to themselves embroiled in that.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 9:09 AM CEST

Ghost of JB

The UK sees NATO as the essential force in European defence matters. If PESCO, as seems likely, is primarily going to be a vehicle to align and distribute funding then the UK would cautiously want a role, although the Galileo experience would mean that there will likely be no technology transfer from the UK except under licence in future, and there may be restrictions on UK nationals, companies and universities cooperating on weapons and technology development.

As far as operations are concerned there may be occasions where Europe chooses to act without NATO, current operations in the Mediterranean for example, but in general the UK is aware that the EU will want access to resources it has chosen not to fund for itself, and so far the post-Brexit security relationship is not off to an auspicious start.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 9:36 AM CEST

Kelly S

Typical of the EUro-wazocks. Always wanting someone else to pay for their defense and their cake and cherries. Nought but cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 9:37 AM CEST

Dr Orthogonal

Be careful what you wish for ….

There are many in the USA (Trump especially) that are hoping that Pesco is an amazing success and that NATO is completely undermined. That will save US taxpayers huge sums.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 9:38 AM CEST

Kelly S

Belgian army criticised for plan to let homesick cadets sleep at home

‘You do not go to war zone with men who miss their mama,’ says veterans’ association chair…

Posted on 5/11/18 | 9:39 AM CEST

john campbell

If the UK is not able to use the same encrypted Galileo GPS systems it might not be able to turn up at the right battle at the right time….or was that just EU posturing….again?

Posted on 5/11/18 | 9:48 AM CEST

Christopher Hiorns

Looks like the other EU countries are beginning to unite against the FrancoGerman plot to exclude the U.K. from security issues. A fast reversal of the UK businesses from Galileo and other projects will be needed to ensure the UK’s continued co-operation though.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 9:50 AM CEST

James Jackson

The EU wants to exclude the UK from access to Galileo GPS satellite and so that should mean NO to involvement in the EU security agenda ….. So let the stump up the money and the soldiers and equipment which they seem so reluctant to pay for ….. SIMPLES!

Posted on 5/11/18 | 11:07 AM CEST

Simon Marsden

Why on earth should we help defend the European Union after the way they are treating the UK over Galileo?

Posted on 5/11/18 | 11:54 AM CEST

Martin Ibovski

Absolutely against it! the security cooperation within the EU must be an option only for some member states-just like the Eurozone and the Schengen Area. Half of the current members of the Union want only an economic free trade zone and development aid from the rich countries without any duties and responsibilities. These nations don’t want additional integration and they should and must be left out. No need to bring in societies that actually don’t support the idea. We already did it once with the UK and now we have this stupid Brexit mess. The same with the Eurozone expansion disaster. The EU must have a ‘CORE’ and a PERIPHERY, so that countiries can decide on the level of integration they want to pursue. The Eurozone has counties in it, that we all know should have never been allowed in, in the first place. The same could be said about the Schengen Area. The security and military cooperation within the EU must be open only for France, Spain and Germany and maybe the Benelux(if they want to participate in it with the other big 3). Italy has become ungovernable and unpredictable and a giant mess, that must decide if it wants to be part of the 21 century or devolve. Scandinavia is mostly neutral and likes it how it is. The Eastern block(most of them are undercover Russian allies anyway) can stay with the US and UK in NATO and be happy as it is now. Bringing in any of these countries would end up in another failure.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 12:15 PM CEST

Perry Winkle

Permanent Structured Cooperation? What the….? How can it be ‘permanent structured’ when the EU has integrated additional territories/countries and there are more queuing up? And whose to say there won’t be more EXITS? PESCO would seem to come under the NATO umbrella.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 12:32 PM CEST

Bob Rob

That is not the right attitude. It’s all motivated by wanting to save a buck and live on the cheap but you need Europe to have it’s own independent defense industrial complex and you will only get that if EU member states actually invest huge sums of money into building and maintaining it. My view is that defense spending actually helps economies in the long run. It is a huge driver of innovation no smart phones without the Pentagon for example. It could be a win-win if we use it for re-distribution purposes to the more economically depressed areas in Europe. That is a much better policy then loans and bailouts. Unlike what people think technological innovation is not achieved in someones garage.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 12:51 PM CEST

Anthony Chambers

Don’t worry about Galileo. The UK will be deducting the replacement cost from the €45bn.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 2:32 PM CEST

Perry Winkle

X KM

Treat UK as a third country! the best they offer is “the U.K. potentially contributing troops”?? they can not be trusted, they will take the money and when it comes to defending EU interests they will do a Trump on us and withdraw from the agreement (well they are already doing a Brexit, so how much can one trust them?)

Posted on 5/11/18 | 3:02 PM CEST

Craig Lamont

@X KM Your comment should disgust you.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 4:11 PM CEST

X KM

@Craig Lamont

@X KM Your comment should disgust you.
————————
Why so? The UK companies would pocket the money from EU defence contracts, but when push comes to shove, the UK would tell the EU to “go whistle”

Posted on 5/11/18 | 4:23 PM CEST

Antoine uk

“The EU wants to exclude the UK from access to Galileo GPS satellite”.
The reality is that EU is only abiding by the Galileo rules defined by its members (including the UK) that third parties (not part of EU) should not have access to the encrypted military bits… and for good reasons.
The decision to exclude UK has therefore been taken by UK. Galileo is only applying the rules.
Of course, the rules can be further negotiated but this can only make sense with regard to the future security relationship UK/EU.

Ref the Benelux paper, the following can be said:
– US Trump is taking hostile positions against its European allies and Trump does not feel committed by any past deal. So EU is only realising a bit late it needs to defend itself and not rely on the US
– UK: since the government cannot agree itself on rather important matters ref its relationship with EU, it would be mad to assume anything until more clarity becomes available (will it come?) on its security strategy

The EU is the ONLY Union in the World where small countries have the upper hand on more powerful country thanks to the rule of law, the veto rights and the “beggar thy neighbour” widespread practices. This is the main (hidden) root cause for Brexit (UK frustration with inability to “reform”). This has led to countries like Luxembourg and Ireland to have GDP per head roughly thrice and twice UK, Germany and France GDP/head (while being net financial recipient from EU) and would lead them to “dictate” defense policy on the same principle (beggar thy neighbour)

The Benelux paper is a clear demonstration that such rules cannot allow a real EU defense where commandment and independence are key:
* Any country sends a missile in 1 of 27 countries and you need unanimity to decide what you are going to do about it?…
* You organise your defense by giving the US (or UK, China, Russia…) strategic control/vetos on part of your military capabilities?… Clearly, they will be financial benefit opportunities to promote US interests… but we are talking defense here?

Trumpism, Putinism and Mayism (dithering for ever) clearly demonstrate that globalisation is meeting some problems and that only the strongest will survive. This is eminently political and the EU needs to be political. Whether this should include 27 countries or less is an excellent question. With current rules anyway, it cannot be 27. The Benelux paper clearly demonstrates it.

And sure enough, there are signs of positive interests from US: “have cake and eat it” or mistreat your poodles (sorry allies) and keep strategic control…

EU needs political Union. Widespread “beggar thy neighbour” pratices (by all Member States) have undermined and nearly killed the EU. EU reform needs to address this, make these BTN very difficult and costly and reestablish a rule of law guided by common values.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 4:48 PM CEST

François P

@X KM

I could be wrong, but I think we are the only two citizens and residents of the EU27 on this thread. And we have both the same reaction: basically, out means out. We want EU countries to develop their military know-how and industry. And we don’t see the need to share that with non-EU countries.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 7:16 PM CEST

blue bell

@X KM
I don’t think trump and whistle should go in the same post Heini. From my observations that only occurs with men in lifts.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 7:22 PM CEST

lesley miller

What will become of us all? it’s is obvious that all our loyal young MEPs will resign their posts to join our glorious new world leading defence force and providing we can get the silly British to pay the divorce bill we can buy them some nice guns and get the Italians to design a nice uniform for our boys and girls and possibly teach them the goose step. Who needs the Americans and British forces and the enormous expense,I find its both cheaper and safer to surrender early in a war,get our lawyers to sort out the fines and compensation due to us like in the last two wars.

Posted on 5/11/18 | 7:24 PM CEST

blue bell

@lesley miller
You seem to have captured the gist of things but for the sake of others I have a Google translate explanation:

France and Germany want to be in charge of development, marketing and all profits from such undertakings with other members making their contributions in the initial (most expensive) stages of development to show solidarity.

When it comes to operations and boots on the ground the other member states will be permitted to participate. The French will naturally take command of operations with the Germans at home taking care of business.

For once Google translate seems to have come up Trump(s)!

Posted on 5/11/18 | 8:09 PM CEST

Tony Brown

X KM

You said

“Treat UK as a third country! the best they offer is “the U.K. potentially contributing troops”?? they can not be trusted, they will take the money and when it comes to defending EU interests they will do a Trump on us and withdraw from the agreement (well they are already doing a Brexit, so how much can one trust them?)”

Have a look round the continent. What do you see? Hundreds of thousands of British military in graves, through defending Europe from Napoleon and the Germans twice, covering a period of 150 years.

Can’t be trusted? Our nation is one of the few paying their way in resourcing Nato which has kept Europe free for a further70 years. Yes, its Nato not the EU that has kept the peace,

You should be ashamed of your comment. Go and find a British war graves site in your country, walk amongst the graves and reflect on your hateful comments. Then come back and apologise

Posted on 5/12/18 | 1:29 AM CEST

That's right

@François P
@X KM

I agree with both.

Let the brexit idiots cry their river on yet another topic they don’t understand.

Posted on 5/12/18 | 12:23 PM CEST

Neil Lester

Tony Brown, the hate and vitriol by some on here knows no bounds. They say they don’t want to punish the UK but judging by most of the comments I read on here from a lot of the regulars, it seems to me that the anti-UK sentiment this website whips up has worked.

Posted on 5/12/18 | 1:54 PM CEST

X KM

@Tony Brown,
enough with your self-importance and self-victimisation! Brexitears (and therefore unfortunately English in general) can not be trusted. do not delute yourself that churchill or that the thousand of commonwealth dead Sikhs, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Scots, Irish, etc. that gave their lives for freedom had anything in common with the narrow minded racists that make up the core of Brexitear ideology. You are the one who should be ashamed of your comments. how dare you, to have the audacity to expropriate their memory, heroism and self sacrifice for your narrow minded self serving cause. So, no sir, brexitears can not be trusted and unfortunatelly the rest of the UK must be treated as such and must be treated as a third country.

Posted on 5/12/18 | 4:39 PM CEST

Tony Brown

Neil

Fortunately the bile and hatred mostly come from the same small group of fanatical Europhiles who rarely back up their vitriol with any facts.

They tend to believe the most absurd things about Britain and rarely bother to check them out.

Many of them also think they know far more about our country than they actually do and are often experts (in their minds) on everything related to the EU and Britain.

Its a shame as there are some rational commentators here but they seem to be increasingly rare.

Posted on 5/12/18 | 4:40 PM CEST

Tony Brown

XKM

I have read your increasingly absurd comments over the last few months.

You made the comment that we can not be trusted. We demonstrate continually we can by supplying troops to fight wars, paying more than our fair share of Nato and huge amounts of finance over the last 40 years to fund the European project.

Can I point out that the various groups you name are all members of the Commonwealth, which they freely joined and is in vigorous health and representing one third of humanity?

If we were so bad that would have nothing to do with us would they?

Who and where are these racists? Do you believe it wrong that we should want to protect our own borders. That we should allow in all and sundry? Are you in favour of open borders?

What precisely is this self serving and narrow minded cause of which you write? Are you talking about the EU, which is a very self serving organisation run by elites feathering their own nests.

Get off your high horse and bring facts to the next discussion for a change, not overblown rhetoric.

Posted on 5/12/18 | 4:50 PM CEST

Tony Brown

xkm

my apologies, I was ruder than I intended.

Please bring facts to the table rather than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Membership of the commonwealth is not obligatory but they choose to be a member. This relationship was not a one way street over the years.

Posted on 5/12/18 | 6:34 PM CEST

X KM

You can not exapropriate history, or the forefathers of one third of humanity, and stop using (and living) the past in order to justify and further your own self serving brexitear “theology”. do NOT accuse me that I am in favour of open borders as I do not, while at the same time trying to hide brexitear racist attitudes behind slogas such as “protect our own borders” & “that we should allow in all and sundry” for what brexitear UK endevours to create is described here: “https://www.politico.eu/article/tendayi-achiume-un-brexit-racism-uk-migrants-face-hostile-environment-in-post-brexit-britain-un/”

I will bring facts to a discussion once the people i discuss with are rational human beings that do not belong to a post-truth minority sect, to whom debate is solely framed by appeals to emotion, disconnected from reality, and who only repeate assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. See “elites feathering their own nests”, “Eurocrats”, “lefttards”, “liberal elites”, “people will”, etc. So, no mate I will not waste by breath giving you facts, while your only obligation is to come up with emotional epithets to attach to people.

So, unfortunately yes the UK in the furture must be treated as a 3rd country that at any moment can turn around and tell us to “GO WHISTLE”, we can not risk our future security on people whose views on commitments to their partners are “go whistle” or did i receive that message from the brexitear side wrong? Unfortunately we can only trust a future UK as much as we are prepared to write off an not a bit more. So, I am looking forwards to a future where the UK is a third country and can be treated as such “Deep and special partnerships” must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Posted on 5/12/18 | 6:55 PM CEST

François P

Really strange.

When the UK was a member of the EU, it did its utmost best to block the EU from getting involved in any kind of defence matters. “A EU army? Horror, horror!”

Now that the UK is leaving the EU, we have several UK posters here complaining when we EU27 citizens are saying that only EU countries should participate in EU defence projects. “The EU is punishing us!”

In addition, many UK posters don’t hesitate to throw one insult after another at EU27 institutions, countries and citizens. “Not for morons like you“ “Typical of the EUro-wazocks. Always wanting someone else to pay for their defense and their cake and cherries. Nought but cheese eating surrender monkeys.” “Who needs the Americans and British forces and the enormous expense, I find its both cheaper and safer to surrender early in a war” “the EU, which is a very self serving organisation run by elites feathering their own nests.”

And there are still UK posters here who wonder why we EU27 citizens don’t trust the UK.

Posted on 5/13/18 | 6:48 AM CEST

Tony Brown

Francois

Fine words, but you might consider why we don’t trust the EU project when its leaders refuse to listen to the people they supposedly represent, leading to the greatest upsurge in far right Mp’s representing immigrant hating parties in the EU’s history.

You might also notice that the UK has none of these MP’s at all.

So you think Selmayr, Juncker and many others like the latter -who have failed in politics in their own country and regained enormous power (think Patten, Mandelson and Kinnock in our own country as well) are not a self serving elite?

How elite and self serving do they have to become before you recognise them for what they are?

Incidentally, if the EU want to form their own army let them do so. You can’t blame us in future for any failure to forge ahead with new projects. Nor can those countries hiding behind our coat tails who don’t want these projects either, but have been blaming us for blocking them

Posted on 5/13/18 | 8:46 AM CEST

Peter 2

If US opinion is that Europe is the only one gaining from NATO. And he might be right. US has an army to defend themselves, so NATO isn’t actually a requirement.
If the US can’t be trusted as an ally. Then NATO backbone isn’t healthy.
UK is leaving EU, but a possibly weaker NATO affects both in a similar way.
It seems like Europe will be investing in military technology in the near future.
Hopefully in European technology, not US..

Posted on 5/13/18 | 11:31 AM CEST

blue bell

@François P
“And there are still UK posters here who wonder why we EU27 citizens don’t trust the UK.”

François P a reality check for you the EU27 do not trust each other either! You are so busy watching each other all the time it is a wonder you are not all cross-eyed. LOL

Posted on 5/13/18 | 4:36 PM CEST

Stan

X KM
“How dare you, to have the audacity to expropriate their memory, heroism and self sacrifice for your narrow minded self serving cause. So, no sir, brexitears can not be trusted and unfortunatelly the rest of the UK must be treated as such and must be treated as a third country.”

😀

You’re getting hysterical… sir! 😀

We ARE a 3rd country to you (or will be) as will you be to us, and we’ll always assume you’ll do what’s best for you and you will assume we will too. No need to get emotional, nothing has changed in that regard. It has always been that way.

What deals can be struck will be struck and what cannot will not, and that will determine the level of ‘trust’ between us. It really isn’t very complicated on the general level that we are involved in. That may not fulfil your emotional needs but hey-ho.

Posted on 5/16/18 | 10:34 AM CEST

Stan

François P

@X KM
“I could be wrong, but I think we are the only two citizens and residents of the EU27 on this thread”